Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The NHS is not a creaking relic, whatever the Tories may say (Daily Telegraph)

The NHS is being asked to do too much with too few staff – but Andy Burnham might just have a cure, says Mary Riddell.

2. It's crunch time on Trident for Miliband and his party (Guardian)

Labour's leader can break with Blairite and Tory nuclear business as usual – and show some real statesmanship, writes Nick Harvey.

3. Lynton Crosby and the myth of neutrality (Financial Times)

Those who exert power in a democracy should be accountable, writes John McDermott.

4. Arab Spring? No, more of a temper tantrum (Times)

These uprisings are mostly incoherent protests by young people, writes Daniel Finkelstein. Only when they are older will democracy thrive.

5. The day Labour lost the moral high ground on the NHS (Daily Mail)

The Tories needn't be intimidated by Labour's 'record' on health care, says Simon Heffer.

6. The Egyptian coup is a warning to Turkey – but will Erdoğan listen? (Guardian)

Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Erdoğan's AK party has alienated opponents, writes James E Baldwin. Ennahda in Tunisia shows a way forward for democratic Islamists.

7. Can Crosby cross the line? (Daily Telegraph)

Campaign strategist Lynton Crosby has revived Conservative Party fortunes, but can he win them the general election, asks Iain Martin.

8. The Keogh report: Don’t judge the NHS by its failures (Independent)

With so much fur flying, the substantive issue risks being obscured, says an Independent editorial.

9. Globalisation in a time of transition (Financial Times)

Trade remains vulnerable to problems such as financial crises and inequality, says Martin Wolf.

10. Bernanke makes markets twitch but what counts is the economy (Independent)

Higher interest rates will be a signal the economy is healing, writes Hamish McRae.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.